Connecticut strives for highest electricity rates in the USA

Guest “I can’t believe I was educated there” by David Middleton

I was born in Connecticut. I was educated in Connecticut. I have never regretted emigrating to Texas nearly 40 years ago…

Connecticut’s offshore wind deals may drive up electricity costs for consumers

As Connecticut lawmakers and Eversource executives battle back and forth over rate increases and Eversource’s response to storm Isaias, offshore wind agreements set in place by Connecticut could potentially drive electricity rates even higher in the future. 

Connecticut in 2019 mandated that Eversource and United Illuminating enter into an agreement to purchase 804 megawatts of offshore wind power from Vineyard Wind through its Park City Wind project and an additional 304 megawatts from Revolution Wind, a joint venture between Eversource and Ørsted. 


Under the terms of the power purchase agreements, Eversource and United Illuminating are required to purchase power generated by Revolution Wind at a cost of $99.50 and $98.42 per megawatt hour, according to a report by Power Advisory, LLC, a consulting and analysis firm specializing in electricity.


The purchase price for the Park City Wind project has not yet been made available, but Massachusetts entered into a power purchase agreement with Vineyard Wind for $74 per MWhr, which will then decrease to $65, according to the Energy Department.

For comparison, the average price per megawatt hour on the wholesale electricity market in 2019 was $30.67, with 65 percent of electricity in New England coming from natural gas and nuclear, according to ISO New England.

The Millstone power purchase agreement – which Eversource and some lawmakers cited as a reason for the latest rate increase — was set at $49.99 per MWhr, and resulted in an average increase on residential consumers of roughly $5.58 per month, according to a report in CT Examiner


Put another way, the Revolution Wind purchase agreements requires utilities to purchase offshore wind power at nearly double the price of the Millstone agreement and will be in place for 20 years, ten years longer than the Millstone agreement.


Yankee Institute for Public Policy

Connecticut actually has higher residential electricity rates than Calizuela California. Only Alaska and Hawaii have higher electricity rates.

 Census Division and StateJun-20Jun-19
10Pacific Noncontiguous27.1629.26
9New England20.4721.2
45Rhode Island19.2820.29
44New York19.1118.52
43New Hampshire1920.34
8Pacific Contiguous16.7517.21

The Pacific Noncontiguous Census Division consists of Alaska and Hawaii.

New England has the highest electricity rates in the Lower 48. All six of the New England states are among the ten states with the highest rates.

Pacific Contiguous consists of Calizuela California, Washington and Oregon. Despite the fact that Washington and Oregon have very low rates (ranked #2 and #11 respectively), the division has the third most expensive electricity due to Calizuela California.

What’s wrong with the Nutmeg State?

Connecticut gets most of its electricity from reliable sources: Nuclear power and natural gas.


While they pay a premium for their nuclear power, natural gas should be cheap… The state isn’t currently saddled with a lot of expensive, unreliable renewable generation, but they still have the most expensive electricity in the Lower 48… Why? This report is from 2015:


By: Lee R. Hansen, Associate Analyst


As of November 2014 (latest available data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration), Connecticut had the second highest average residential retail electric rates in the country. High rates are a regional phenomenon, and all six of the New England states plus New York are among the 10 states with the highest rates.

We are aware of no empirical analysis as to why Connecticut’s rates are so high. However, it appears that several factors that apply across New England and interact with each other are the primary causes. These include (1) the structure of the electric industry in New England, where the vast majority of power is supplied by non-utility generators; (2) federally-approved wholesale market rules; (3) a tight market caused by growth in demand outstripping supply; (4) the mix of fuels used to generate power in the region and, in particular, the region’s reliance on natural gas; (5) environmental standards; and (6) congestion on the state’s electric transmission system.


Fuel Mix

New England depends more heavily than other regions on natural gas as a generating fuel. During most of the year, natural gas powered plants set the spot market price. In contrast, other regions rely much more heavily on coal as a generating fuel. As coal is a significantly less expensive source of power than natural gas, this difference accounts for part of the difference in rates (particularly in states that do not regulate their coal plants’ emissions to the same extent as the New England states do).

Over the past decade, technological advances in drilling techniques have brought substantially more gas to market in North America, resulting in larger quantities of natural gas and lower natural gas prices. At the same time, an increasing amount of New England’s electricity comes from natural gas. Many coal and oil plants have been retired or will retire in the near future, and gas-powered power plants are expected to replace them. From 2007 through 2013, the portion of electricity generated from New England’s natural gas-fueled power plants increased from 34% to 46%. From 2009 to 2013, these factors helped lower electricity prices in New England.

Interstate gas transmission lines, however, have not expanded in proportion to the increase in supply and demand. Gas-powered power plants generally purchase natural gas through intermittent (or interruptible) contracts, and transmission pipelines generally expand based on firm commitments, thus increased demand from generators has not necessarily led to pipeline expansion.

During episodes of extreme cold weather, when the gas transmission lines are at full capacity due to heating demand, intermittent contracts allow the demand from gas companies supplying gas to residences and businesses on “firm” contracts to take precedence over the intermittent contracts. When this happens, gas-powered power plants lose access to the gas they need to generate electricity and electricity suppliers must buy their power from more expensive, non-gas-powered generators at a premium price due to their limited supply and high demand. These increased prices tend to be passed on to consumers and may lead to dramatic rate increases, particularly in short-term variable rates. This price volatility can increase the price of electricity over time, as has been seen over the past two to three years. For more information about the relationship between natural gas and electricity prices, see OLR Report 2014-R-0267.

Environmental and Renewable Standards

Part of the reason why New England uses more natural gas and less coal than other regions is its air quality standards. The New England states have among the most stringent emission standards in the country for nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and other pollutants. Emissions of these pollutants from natural gas plants are lower and easier to control than those from coal plants. The New England States also participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a “cap-and-trade” program that subjects power plants in the region to a declining cap on the amount of CO2 they can emit and allows plants that emit more CO2 than they are allowed to buy credits from plants that emit less CO2 than they are allowed. Funds raised by the initiative are used for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.

In addition, all of the New England states except Vermont have renewable portfolio standards (RPS) that require part of the power sold in these states to come from renewable resources. Connecticut has also directed its electric companies to enter into long-term commitments to purchase electricity from various renewable energy projects (e.g., Project 150, the L-REC and Z-Rec programs). These commitments and the RPS requirements could increase the overall cost of power if the price for the renewables is higher than the price for power produced from other sources. However, renewables may also help mitigate other expenses by limiting increases in peak demand, reducing system congestion and transmission costs, and reducing the need for various distribution system infrastructure upgrades.


Connecticut Office for Legislative Research

To put it in a nutmeg shell…

  • Air quality standards led Connecticut and other New England states to replace petroleum liquid and coal-fired power plants with natural gas.
  • Shear stupidity then led these states to obstruct the construction of adequate natural gas pipeline capacity.
  • AGW alarmism then led to renewable portfolio standards (RPS) and a regional “cap-and-trade” program.

In other words:

They got what Obama promised and now, Obama’s sock puppet plans to make things worse: Biden Promises No New Pipelines

Vineyard Wind: Corporate Welfare on Steroids

And now they want to purchase offshore wind for twice the price of the, already expensive, nuclear power agreement. The Yankee Institute article noted that Connecticut will pay $98.42 to $99.50/MWh  while Massachusetts only pays $74/MWh MWhr, decreasing to $65 over the life of the agreement… But that’s not the whole story. Despite public announcements of $65-75/MWh power purchase agreements (PPA), Vinyard Wind, Massachusetts’ first approved offshore wind project, has an estimated levelized revenue of energy (LROE) of $98/MWh, more than twice the LCOE of natural gas.

An extensive accounting of the PPA price schedule and expected revenue sources inclusive of those that are exogenous to the reported PPA is conducted in this study to estimate the project’s levelized revenue of energy (LROE). This allows for a more equivalent comparison of the reported PPA pricing with bottom-up modeled (unsubsidized) levelized cost of energy (LCOE) estimates. The reader should note that this analysis solely reflects the opinions of the authors and was conducted independently of the ongoing evaluation by the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources of the PPA between Vineyard Wind LLC and Massachusetts electric distribution companies as filed on July 31, 2018. The analysis and conclusions described herein do not reflect actual cost data, which are confidential to Vineyard Wind and its partners.

The total calculated LROE from the Vineyard LLC/EDC PPA is estimated to be $98/MWh (2018$). This LROE estimate for the first commercial-scale offshore wind project in the United States appears to be within the range of LROE estimated for offshore wind projects recently tendered in Northern Europe with a start of commercial operation by the early 2020s. This suggests that the expected cost and risk premium for the initial set of U.S. offshore wind projects might be less pronounced than anticipated by many industry observers and analysts.


If Vineyard Wind will receive $98/MWh, while Massachusetts only pays $65-75/MWh… Who foots the bill for the remaining $23-33/MWh? And Why didn’t Connecticut get the same deal?

Connecticut Earns a Ron White Lifetime Achievement Award

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 17, 2020 6:19 pm

If politicians could tax everyone at 90%, their conversations behind closed doors would all be – “How do we get that last 10%?”

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  ScienceABC123
September 18, 2020 12:10 am

And if politicians could tax us at 100%….

They’d still run out of money!

Joel Snider
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
September 18, 2020 2:52 pm

Too true. And they’d still demand more.

Reply to  ScienceABC123
September 18, 2020 8:06 am

Once they get tax rates up to 100%, they will still be asking each other how to get the next 10%.

Reply to  MarkW
September 18, 2020 10:05 am

Is this what giving 110 % means? 😎

Reply to  MarkW
September 19, 2020 7:32 am

A few years ago the Labour government in the UK managed a marginal tax rate of over 100%. And even now, for the very poor, it is exactly 100%.

Bill Powers
Reply to  ScienceABC123
September 18, 2020 9:38 am

Their plan is to socialize and take over the means of production. The good news is, no more taxation. The bad news is, they will take all the wealth unto the government and then provide us with food, housing and a clothing and entertainment allowance (They will come up with a catchy acronym like a FECH Allowance).

They will divide up the (diminishing) proceeds from government run production and services between themselves and pay our FECH by putting it on the federal tab (The Federal Debt) and hand the bill to our great grand children. Of course this system will collapse in short order and it will be interesting to see what industrious people build out of the rubble.

As a start, it might do to take a cue from Shakespeare’s Henry VI “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”

Robert of Texas
September 17, 2020 6:34 pm

So, I guess I have to stop complaining about my 10.5 cents rate?

One thing for certain, if you want to drive homes to be more efficient and use less electricity, these kind of rates will do it. You will lose power hungry businesses, but then who needs to work for a living when the government will just give you more money?

The problem is that some 30% to 40% of homeowners will end up getting subsidized with government money. Government money is free after all – it grows on money trees.

Reply to  Robert of Texas
September 17, 2020 6:55 pm

“Government money is free after all – it grows on money trees.”
If money does not grow on trees, then why do banks have branches???
Huh, Huh, Huh?

Is your 10.5 cents rate retail?
The 9.9 cent rate quoted above is wholesale.
You should see what happens to that rate after all the “environmental” surcharges and “efficiency” adjustments are added in. Last I checked a retail bill, it looked like 22.5 cents kwh, then add in another bunch of charges on top again.
{Note: The New England states do everything to hide the true cost of RGGI. Your typical retail consumer electric bill is an epic example of obfuscation.}

Joe B
Reply to  TonyL
September 18, 2020 12:05 am

Electricity is 1 component.
Transmission another.
Local utility cost of operations a third.
Taxes and myriad fees round up the 4 main sub components of a normal monthly bill.
Generally, the wholesale cost of the commodity – electricity, in this case – is a pass through process with little to no mark up to the end consumer from the wholesale benchmark.

Reply to  TonyL
September 19, 2020 8:01 am

I use Cobb County (Ga) Electric Membership Cooperative. Last bill was $195.59, total, for 1613 kWh, or $0.12126/kWh, including taxes. Summertime rates are higher than winter.

They purchase hydro, coal, NG, and a (very) little solar. I think coal is about 27%. No issue with pipelines. Atlanta is a hub city (we are a suburb).

There is no way I would ever move to the northeast or the west. I just hope they don’t move here.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  TonyL
September 24, 2020 9:48 am

My bill in Ontario is very obfuscated. Final cost with “rebate” credit (government subsidy) is 14.6¢/kWh. Without subsidy it is 20.4¢/kWh. The wholesale cost from the hydro and nuclear generators is about 3¢, while the advertised retail cost is nominally 12.8¢, plus delivery and regulatory fees. As far as I can tell, the difference between 12.8¢ and 3¢ is entirely “green” expenses, but they’re not listed that way of course. They used to list a “Global Adjustment” (i.e. Provincial Adjustment) which constituted subsidies to generators that can’t make money at 3¢, i.e. the wind and solar generators. That’s not listed separately any more though.

Len Werner
September 17, 2020 6:42 pm

Just so stunning watching Obama deliver that message–who voted for that?

Screw it, I’m joining Ron White…in the glass. Now I understand why so many Russians are continually blitzed on booze–their future is the same as America’s, only sooner. ‘Calizuela’, no schist.

September 17, 2020 6:47 pm

Don’t let the energy information administration fool you. Right now my minimum rate from Southern California Edison is 21 cents per kW-hr, with a second tier at 28 cents and a third (which we live in during the summer because air conditioning in the desert) at 42 cents. I’d happily kill to only pay an average of 19.79 cents per kW-hr.

September 17, 2020 6:52 pm

You can tell it’s a Climate Alarmist article. They said “may drive up electricity costs” instead of “will drive up electricity costs”. Always weasel words with those guys.

Reply to  Spetzer86
September 18, 2020 12:47 am

In my country the favourite phrase is that so called renewables “will put downward pressure on energy prices” The mechanism of how that could ever happen if of course never explained, but you can be sure that at every “powering x thousand households” photo opp the downward pressure meme will be repeated.

John F Hultquist
September 17, 2020 7:11 pm

The purpose of these high prices is to save the planet.
How dare you object.

Shoki Kaneda
Reply to  John F Hultquist
September 17, 2020 9:27 pm

“How dare you” is a nice touch.

September 17, 2020 7:22 pm

Follow the money.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Jim
September 17, 2020 8:08 pm

The Green Slime billionaires and their “Green” Hedge Funds is where it leads. The public union pension funds in most Blue States have piled in with substantial protfolio positons on those investment devices. And then they kick back huge campaign contributions to Democrats to keep the Renewable subsidies and mandates ever upwards.

Climate Change policy is hustle on the middle class. The Road to Serfdom is the goal of the Socialist Greens and their bought political class.

h/t: Friedrich Hayek

Brooks Hurd
September 17, 2020 7:44 pm

They think that the moves that Conn is making “MIGHT” increase electrical rates???

Reply to  Brooks Hurd
September 17, 2020 10:02 pm

Raising rates is the goal.

Joel O'Bryan
September 17, 2020 8:03 pm

In the 8 years since I sold my House in Massachusetts and moved out west, the electricity prices have gone up there from about 14c/kWh to over 21c/kWh today. A 50% increase. That’s over 5% increase per year, and 14 year doubling rate.

Glad I got the frack out of Lunatic Land.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 18, 2020 4:01 am

Meanwhile, in those 8 years- the state is being paved over with solar “farms”. A large natural gas pipe was proposed to bring in gas (from the Marcellus shale) from NY state- the greenies fought it and stopped it.

Those solar “farms” utterly destroy fields and forests. Solar is supposed to help “save the Earth and its species”. So to save it you have to destroy it.

September 17, 2020 8:15 pm

Could you clarify in layman’s terms – do they get paid $98/MW hr even when the electricity is not needed and correspondingly do they have a penalty if the can’t provide an agreed amount?

Thanks in advance

Reply to  Waza
September 17, 2020 11:22 pm

RGGI – The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
They get paid the $98/MW hr even when the power is not needed. {Mandates, of course.}

We used to say “Your tax dollars at work.”

Now, both the taxpayers and the ratepayers are getting hammered.
{Some of us notice that we are both taxpayers and ratepayers.}
We pay taxes so the government can implement policies which force the ratepayers to pay more.

Joe B
Reply to  Waza
September 17, 2020 11:42 pm

The produced electricity is always put into the grid (by NE ISO, the impartial grid manager for the 6 state New England region).
The individual states mandate – through their highly regulated utilities – compulsary purchases at the above stated pricing from the communal, wholesale power market which are then forwarded to the offshore electricity ‘providers.

There is growing friction around the country – particularly in the PJM region – concerning the myriad directives emanating from individual states as they conflict with the federally regulated (FERC) mandates of the interstate grid managers.
There are NO penalties for lack of production for any of these Renewable (sic) power ‘providers’.

sky king
September 17, 2020 8:22 pm

Reading this prompted me to look at my August electric bill here in the Philippines.

From it I calculate $152/MWh, of which only $4 are add-ons after generation and transmission charges.

Even CA and CT rates look like a bargain from here.

sky king
Reply to  sky king
September 17, 2020 9:01 pm

I see now that the article was presenting wholesale prices. So at 15.2 cents/Kwh retail I’m much better off in Phils then in many places in the States. That surprises me because most expats complain about the high cost of power here.

Joe B
Reply to  sky king
September 17, 2020 11:50 pm

It appears that Connecticut – and New England – may be supplemented through the coming winters’ cold snaps with imported LNG via the Northeast Gateway Terminal just off Boston Harbor.
2 Floating Storage and Regassification Units (FSRUs) bailed them out in February, 2019, with a world record send out rate hitting 800 million cubic feet.
These ships were the Exemplar and the Excelerate carrying product from Yamal (originally) and Trinidad.

Pretty expensive way to keep the lights on … but nobody said Saving The Planet was gonna be easy.

Reply to  sky king
September 17, 2020 11:50 pm

I wonder if you are reading your bill correctly? Of course, it probably matters which Province you are in the PHP, but 15.2 cents/kWh USD sounds fairly cheap for there. PHP has the 2nd highest electricity prices in all of SE Asia. In the Province of Bohol, it averages about .25 cents, all in. With rolling blackouts though from time to time. Palawan is now north of .32 cents and some of the smaller island Provinces with heavy diesel generation can even be quite a bit more. That is where solar PV and solar hot water do make a lot of sense.

For the locals, who make 1/10 what we make in the West, or less, they can barely afford to run the fan and a small fridge, if they are lucky. These days, many are scrounging to find firewood to cook whatever rice they can get, because it just costs too much to run the electric rice cooker. Plus the billing can be confusing, adding in water and sewer, or other municipal/Barangay charges, so figuring it out can be half the battle. I help out a few friends there so I see the bills. Wouldn’t trust the meter calibration either, but that is another story that is surely in the Utility favor. Plus a lot of losses on very long final distribution wire from one transformer supplying dozens of households at 220V 60 cycle. They always seem to put the meter near the transformer, so the customer pays for the losses, at least in more rural areas. Easier for meter reading I suppose.

sky king
Reply to  Earthling2
September 18, 2020 5:27 am

Bill was p6666 for 876kWh. (6666/50)/876=0.152/kWh. Generation and transmission = p4461 and Distribution Charge =p1986. I was surprised at the result too.
I live in the Subic Bay Freeport Zone. There is an oil-fired generation plant probably built by the US Navy long ago.
Your observations about PH are mine as well. I bought a family a gas cooking setup to replace charcoal and wood. All the kids had asthma. Making cooking charcoal is a large business here. The far mountains across Subic Bay are frequently alight from the charcoal makers.
I pay the bills for some families I help. Their power bills are usually p1000 to p2000. I have helped some that have no electricity despite living in the city.

Joe B
Reply to  sky king
September 18, 2020 12:01 am

Sky king
Generally, the wholesale prices ($98/Mwh = 9.8 cents/Kwh) are passed through to the customer with little to no mark up. Local utilities are then allowed – via strict regulation – to include their ‘reasonable’ costs of operations/profit. Transmission costs are a third component, with taxes/fees rounding out the customary 4 sub components of monthly electric bills.
The EIA site has outstanding tables showing cost of electricity throughout the 50 states, with informative breakdowns showing commercial, industrial, and residential pricing. BIG spreads there, with highly competitive, low cost states charging 6 To 7 cents per Kwh for highly desirable manufacturing plants.
Cheap, abundant natgas along with ultra efficient Combined Cycle Gas Plants are enabling some of the lowest electricity costs on the planet.

Jim Jim
September 17, 2020 8:59 pm

Up here in Edmonton, Alberta, I am only paying an “energy charge” of 3 cents/kWh. However, the distribution and transmission charges are more than double that, so all in is $0.123/kWh. Mind you that’s CDN dollars, so a pretty good deal!

Tom in Florida
September 17, 2020 9:01 pm

I was born and raised in Hamden, Ct. Spent 9 years in military then moved back until Sep 1991 when Lowell “One Term” Wicker instituted a state income tax and made it retroactive to the first of the year. Been in Florida ever since. With my energy efficient windows (E-21) and a new A/C last year, my monthly electric bills this summer have been around $75-80 per month. All electric house & appliances with central A/C, three large TVs and a super duper fast computer system I had built special. My friends and relatives that are still back in Ct can eat their calzone, if they can afford it.

Shoki Kaneda
September 17, 2020 9:26 pm

California cannot allow their energy leadership to be challenged. They will increase energy taxes AND randomly shut off power. Take that, Connecticut.

September 17, 2020 9:32 pm

The ongoing battle to litigate natural gas pipeline expansions to death is starting to have an effect on the North Eastern Democrat run states. The gas suppliers have been trying for a number of years to remove the bottle necks forming in the high pressure supply pipelines. When the demand for gas out strips the supply during the coldest days of winter these gas suppliers start to curtail the natural gas power plants to protect the consumer market for home heating fuel. Unfortunately curtailing these power plants is causing the power grid to become unstable and some blackouts or brown outs were seen during the cold spell last January. So it is a NO WIN situation for these end users as your furnace or boiler does not run when the power is out and the power companies can not get the supplies they need to maintain peak demand. One good ice storm and this green fallacy will all come crashing down. Freezing to death is a good reason to get out of these Democrat run states because these politicians, lefty environmentalists and their supporters do not seem to be able to grasp this reality.

Joe B
September 17, 2020 11:48 pm

It appears that Connecticut – and New England – may be supplemented through the coming winters’ cold snaps with imported LNG via the Northeast Gateway Terminal just off Boston Harbor.
2 Floating Storage and Regassification Units (FSRUs) bailed them out in February, 2019, with a world record send out rate hitting 800 million cubic feet.
These ships were the Exemplar and the Excelerate carrying product from Yamal (originally) and Trinidad.

Pretty expensive way to keep the lights on … but nobody said Saving The Planet was gonna be easy.

Reply to  Joe B
September 18, 2020 12:18 am

Interesting. Yamal is a $27 billion Russian LNG project in the Arctic circle. It’s 50.1% owned by Novatek, a Russian company controlled by billionaire Leonid Mikhelson – reportedly the second richest man in Russia. And nobody would get to that level of wealth in the RF without being on good terms with a certain hombre known as Vladimir Putin.

Reply to  Zane
September 18, 2020 12:26 am

They are calling Yamal ” the gas that came in from the cold.”

September 18, 2020 12:10 am

Just paid an electricity bill in Victoria, Australia. Most electricity in this state is from brown coal. The utility is Energy Australia, which is 100% owned by Hong Kong’s CPL Group – China Light & Power. The kWh rate is almost A$.38, say US$.27. Daily supply charge is A$1.48, about US$32 a month. The bill came with a leaflet detailing ways to save energy in winter – coz it’s (or was) winter here downunder. These tips included:-

– 20 is plenty ie. set thermostat at 20 Celsius, or 68F.
– rug up before turning on your heater
– only heat the rooms you are using
– dry clothes on washing line or rack if the sun is out
– invest in ceiling insulation
– turn off lights and appliances if you don’t need them on
– close off parts of the house you are not heating


September 18, 2020 2:25 am

‘I have never regretted emigrating to Texas nearly 40 years ago…’

Did you ever read James Michener’s excellent book ‘Texas’ David?

He says in it that the people who found the wide open Western frontier too constricting all went to Texas…

September 18, 2020 2:49 am

The price of power SHOULD include the extra expenses that are incurred by substituting unreliable for reliable sources. Unreliable sources require more duplicative, reliable backup power generation (and batteries are NOT power generators – they only can store relatively small amounts of power) . The cost of maintaining standby power generation capacity is not cheap – the costs are about the same as an operating plant, minus the fuel costs. In the case of nuclear, the fuel costs are miniscule (about 3/4th of a cent per kWhr. Currently only hydro and nat gas powered generators act as backup power units. Wind is a 16th century technology.

September 18, 2020 5:46 am

How about a tax on unions in CT.

Barbara Durkin
September 18, 2020 6:12 am

It gets worse…Neither subsea transmission nor battery’s energy storage systems (BESS), nor U.S. flagged special purpose vessels, nor ports upgrades wind needs are included!

Subsea cabling costs are at least 2xs the the cost of wind arrays. Batteries are 3xs the cost of generation. Subsea cabling has failed at DeepWater Wind since 2016 commissioning. Regulators in R.I. have ordered cables be redesigned & reinstalled, by directional drilling— $$$ NGrid will pass this cost of failure on to ratepayers.

More than 70% of offshore wind insurance claims are for failed subsea cabling. Cost average to repair, each, $6.5 mil

The $1.7 bn Western Link subsea cable was installed to carry wind generation from Scotland to Wales & England, to reduce “constraint” or “curtailment” payments. Western Link has failed!

Offshore wind is a Ponzi scheme! Paid MORE to NOT produce

Dr John Constable, the director of REF, said: “The reckless policy of wind farm construction in Scotland… has created an ongoing bonanza for wind farms, which are actually paid more per unit to stop generating than to generate.”

‘New report: U.S. offshore wind proposals will need up to 3,000 miles of offshore transmission’

MA Attorney General Maura Healey, our ratepayer advocate, fought against a $168 million bonus awarded to three utilities to carry Vineyard Wind contracts on their books. And, AG spokesperson said this bonus award by Mass DPU ‘sets a dangerous precedent’, Precedent? ANNUAL BONUS.

Barbara Durkin
September 18, 2020 6:22 am

Vineyard Wind is a stand alone joint venture co-owned by two corporate partners, with one being Avangrid Renewables, the other being Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners.

This foreign ownership of generation is the antithesis of the U.S. President’s stated goal.
“Instead of relying on foreign oil and foreign energy, we are now relying on American energy and American workers like never before.”
President Donald J. Trump

Vineyard Wind would create “green” jobs in Spain, Italy, Denmark, China and the Netherlands, funded by U.S. taxpayers, according to Vineyard Wind:

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Barbara Durkin
September 18, 2020 7:50 am

Otherwise known as the Democrats doing everything they can to undermine the POTUS’ goals. As usual. Without the Eco-Nazi (“Blue”) states’ “renewable mandates” through taxpayer screwings like the RGGI, nobody would be giving “Vineyard Wind” dick for their useless, haphazard and unpredictable energy “generation.”

September 18, 2020 8:16 am

Any discussion of the cost of wind power using direct comparison is a bit silly. Since it is not dispatchable and cannot respond to load it’s value is very low or negative. It is MIA for extended periods and comes on strong when you don’t need it.
To make a direct price comparison to useful energy sources is dishonest. I have said it over and over, bit still this skeptical article directly compares the price of wind with dispatchable power.
The wind companies should be paying the utilities to take their power.

Kevin kilty
September 18, 2020 10:31 am

At one time I paid only $0.025/kWhr for power from Merwin Dam. Those were the days, but now I live where I pay about $0.13/kWhr for Pacific Power.

At one time Northeastern gnerators could replace natural gas with on-site stored liquid fuels when conditions required the transmission pipelines prioritize customers’ heating requirements. Now as I understand, they can do so no longer per state laws, thus making them ever more brittle.

TL Winslow
September 18, 2020 11:49 am
Carguy Pete
September 18, 2020 1:43 pm

I just paid my August electricity bill in western PA.
This is the breakdown.
Price to compare default service 1945 KWH x 0.06640 $130.00
Customer Charge $9.35
Distribution System Improvement Charge $5.43
Distribution Charge 1945 KWH x 0.050514 $98.25
Solar Requirements Charge 1945 KWH x 0.000290 $.056
Default Service Support Charge 1945 KWH x 0.001670 $3.25
TCJA Voluntary Surcharge -$7.90

Total $238.94

August was very warm here.

September 18, 2020 9:39 pm

Spare a thought for the good folks of South Australia. The previous left-leaning state government blew up their main power plant and converted the state to relying on wind for 56% of its power. As a result, their domestic power costs skyrocketed to US 30c/unit and they are now very dependent on coal-produced energy from a neighbouring state. The end result is, like California, subject to blackout, power restrictions and high energy costs that kill industries.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights